First Post-Fukushima Permit Revocation Overturned: Osaka High Court Upholds Ohi Nuclear Plant Permit
The Osaka High Court overturned a 2020 lower court ruling that had revoked the operating permit for Kansai Electric Power's Ohi nuclear plant units 3 and 4. The court ruled in favor of the government, stating that the regulatory review process was sound.
📋 Article Processing Timeline
- 📰 Published: May 28, 2026 at 16:37
- 🔍 Collected: May 31, 2026 at 23:51 (79h 14m after Published)
- 🤖 AI Analyzed: June 2, 2026 at 00:45 (24h 53m after Collected)
According to a report from CNA, a reversal has occurred in the lawsuit regarding the operating permit for Kansai Electric Power's Ohi nuclear power plant units 3 and 4. The Osaka High Court today overturned the 2020 first-instance ruling by the Osaka District Court that had revoked the national permit, dismissing the claims of residents from Fukui Prefecture and the Kinki region. This marks the first time a judicial ruling denying a nuclear plant permit after the Fukushima disaster has been overturned on appeal.
According to reports from Yomiuri TV and Mainichi Shimbun, the administrative lawsuit was filed by residents who argued that the permit for the Ohi plant was illegal.
The Ohi units 3 and 4 began operations between 1991 and 1993. Following the Fukushima disaster, Japan strengthened safety standards, and both units were certified as compliant with new regulations in 2017, resuming operations in 2018.
The focus of the litigation was the adequacy of the Nuclear Regulation Authority's review based on new safety standards, particularly the setting of the "standard seismic motion."
In the 2020 ruling, the Osaka District Court found that Kansai Electric had used average values for seismic calculations without considering potential extremes, and that the regulatory review was insufficient, constituting a "significant error or omission." The government subsequently appealed.
The Osaka High Court ruling stated that under current scientific standards, it cannot be concluded that there were "significant errors or omissions" in the regulatory review process, nor that the judgment was unreasonable. Therefore, the government's approval was not illegal.
The court acknowledged the necessity of considering large-scale earthquakes exceeding average values but noted that Kansai Electric had adopted a conservative approach in its calculations, thus validating the government's review.
Following the ruling, the plaintiffs expressed regret, stating that Japan, as an earthquake-prone country, should not be operating nuclear plants. Kansai Electric responded that the ruling reflects the court's understanding of the government's and the company's arguments.
According to reports from Yomiuri TV and Mainichi Shimbun, the administrative lawsuit was filed by residents who argued that the permit for the Ohi plant was illegal.
The Ohi units 3 and 4 began operations between 1991 and 1993. Following the Fukushima disaster, Japan strengthened safety standards, and both units were certified as compliant with new regulations in 2017, resuming operations in 2018.
The focus of the litigation was the adequacy of the Nuclear Regulation Authority's review based on new safety standards, particularly the setting of the "standard seismic motion."
In the 2020 ruling, the Osaka District Court found that Kansai Electric had used average values for seismic calculations without considering potential extremes, and that the regulatory review was insufficient, constituting a "significant error or omission." The government subsequently appealed.
The Osaka High Court ruling stated that under current scientific standards, it cannot be concluded that there were "significant errors or omissions" in the regulatory review process, nor that the judgment was unreasonable. Therefore, the government's approval was not illegal.
The court acknowledged the necessity of considering large-scale earthquakes exceeding average values but noted that Kansai Electric had adopted a conservative approach in its calculations, thus validating the government's review.
Following the ruling, the plaintiffs expressed regret, stating that Japan, as an earthquake-prone country, should not be operating nuclear plants. Kansai Electric responded that the ruling reflects the court's understanding of the government's and the company's arguments.
FAQ
How does this ruling affect Japan's nuclear restart policy?
By validating the regulatory review process, it reduces legal obstacles for restarting other nuclear reactors.